Memory Alpha talk:About
Forum:Name change I'm sure the creators of this database worked hard to find the right name for this project. However, Memory Alpha just isn't very memorable to me. Wikipedia, or Wookieepedia (the Star Wars version), just rolls off of the tongue. May I suggest the name Trekkiepedia? I'm aware of the conotation that "Trekkie" has to some people, but the name just seems more catchy. :"Memory Alpha" is named in honor of that great research libary seen in . See Memory Alpha for more. I rather like the name, myself! Aholland 19:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC) ::I like Trekkiepedia over Memory Alpha, but I doubt people would want to change it after so long. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 21:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC) :::God, no. "Trekkiepedia" just sounds fanboyish and generic IMO, whereas "Memory Alpha" sounds more like a serious brand name (as far as that's possible for a Trek fan site ;) ). Besides, from a marketing standpoint, changing a name that is as well-known as Memory Alpha has become would be ridiculous. -- Cid Highwind 13:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC) ::::I prefer "Trekkipedia" to "Trekkiepedia." But "Memory Alpha" always makes me think of "Moonbase Alpha" on 'Space 1999' - I had no idea where the name came from until I read Aholland's comment above. Or how about a name with , M-5, in it? -- Stekev 18:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC) ::Yeah, most people (myself included for a long time) have no idea why our name is so cryptic. But to "die-hard" Trekkies TOS fans I guess it's an ideal title. ;) --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 18:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC) :::::Memory Alpha is too perfectly matching a reference to change it. Cid's right, "Trekkiepedia" sounds generic. Also, I would be opposed to anything with "wiki" in the title. The fact that Memory Alpha is not a well known reference makes it even better. --Bp 18:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC) ::::::In no way, I would change the title for Trekkipedia, which is in no way original (Wikipedia, Wookipedia, , whereas Memory Alpha is a subtil and adequate reference to the Trek universe - Philoust123 18:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC) :::::::I actually really like the name "Trekkiepedia", and recently independently thought that I wished Memory Alpha was called Trekkiepedia. I subsequently happened across this forum page not through MA itself but through a Google search of the word "Trekkiepedia" to see if anybody had made a Trekkiepedia of their own (nobody has!). So "Trekkiepedia" sounds a bit fanboy-ish, but that's what we are - let's be proud! "Trekkiepedia" would appeal to the masses more, and would immediately suggest to anybody seeing the name that this place is THE definitive online source of Star Trek information - in a way that the rather obscure "Memory Alpha" never will. I expect that most of you will think the name "Memory Alpha" is far too established to change now, but let's face it even the biggest companies undertake a strategic re-brand every now and again. If there was ever a time to do it, a re-brand timed to coincide with the re-birth of Star Trek heralded by the new movie would be it. -- Taduolus 18:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC) ::::::::I would oppose any name change, but especially this proposal. Memory Alpha stands out, and I see little reason to conform to the naming conventions of other wikis or encyclopedias. Sometimes names with an obscure meaning are the best ones, especially if it make people seek out why that was chosen.--31dot 21:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC) :::To cut this discussion short: This is not going to happen! - thanks, and good night. -- Cid Highwind 23:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC) :::::::::I like Memory Alpha better. TrekkyStar 23:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC) :::::::How incredibly rude, Cid. Your personal opinion may be that the name change is very unlikely to happen, but that does not give you the right to cut short the discussion in such an abrupt way. This is a community project - no individual has the right (or should attempt) to stamp down on freedom of speech, debate and discussion. -- Taduolus 11:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC) :::Oh, please, not the "freedom of speech" card. This discussion page is not protected from editing, so please, feel free to continue this if you think it's necessary - just consider my comment helpful advice on the futility of it. :) -- Cid Highwind 11:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC) ::::::::::You know that Cid is right. There isn't a snowballs chance in heck of ever changing the name, especially to something so... I don't know fannish. (Though I do have to admit that whoever said name it after M-5, didn't have a bad idea). --UESPA 22:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC) Real world Do we really need the realworld template on this page, or any other page in the Memory Alpha namespace? I think it's a given that articles in anything other than the main namespace (i.e. Help, Maintenence, Template, etc.) are not written from an in-universe POV. -- Renegade54 19:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC) :Exactly. Pages in MA: namespace aren't even "articles" in the strictest sense. These pages aren't meant to present encyclopedic information as articles in main namespace, won't ever be from a "non-realworld" POV, and so they don't need this message box. -- Cid Highwind 19:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC) Forum:Duplication of effort? If "Memory Beta is...for licensed Star Trek works, including '''novels,...',"'' why are there novels in Memory-Alpha? As MA is supposed to focus on canon and novels aren't canon, why not have them in MB only? Seems like the overlap would lead to a duplication of effort. --StarFire209 05:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC) :The difference is the level of depth -- we only create an article about each novel, to signify that each exists. MB creates new articles for every character, ship, person, etc in the novel, which we don't do here -- as it would make it unclear was was canon and what was not (for example, if we honored novel stories as article material, James T. Kirk was reanimated after death by the Borg in a novel, which he wasn't in canon). -- Captain MKB 08:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC) But why "honor" novels with whole articles at all? If all you want is to signify a novel exists, a single line in an MA article called "Novels" with a link to the full article at MB would do that. It's not that big a deal, although having the novels in MA does affect searches. But no one has to read any article. It's just that the practice seems a touch redundant and it blurs the canon vs. non-canon distinction between MA and MB. It's not "logical." :)--StarFire209 12:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC) ::Because MA/en is covering all licensed materials as exactly that... something licensed by Paramount/CBS/whatever and published/released/etc. We're listing those as items that can be purchased/etc. We don't care if Kirk is reanimated in one, killed in another, etc. Sometimes those items are listed in apocrypha sections when they are most interesting, often when a character has one on-screen appearance and is the central character of a novel. If you do look carefully, all comics, novels, games, etc are all marked as "real world" items, something that distinguishes them from the in-universe stuff (which is missing that marking). -- Sulfur 13:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC) :::In addition, to an extent, it is our time to waste if we so choose to. --OuroborosCobra talk 14:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC) :::I should add that novels are not being honored above other licensed products, such as games, calenders, comics, etc. They all have their single articles, or will. --OuroborosCobra talk 14:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC) :StarFire, does it help to think of it the same way as how we "honor" plenty of other out-of-universe, non-canon things here? A few examples: 1, 2, 3, 4. I'd argue that the "logic" is apparent through our use of Template:Realworld. MA's secondary mission to maintaining a canon in-universe encyclopedia is to "cover the beat" of licensed Star Trek works from the realworld POV. SwishyGarak 19:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC) I didn't catch the distinction earlier. Thanks, gentlemen. – StarFire209 19:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC) Honestly, why worry about it? MA has stated ad nausium their policy on cannon vs. non-cannon; if they choose to give a nod to a novel or what not; more power to them; it saves me from clicking over or inspires me to investigate. If they feel like a novel did an exceptional job of depicting the ST universe, why complain? – Farfallen 03:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC) Wording? :This makes it very easy for any fan to share their knowledge and insight of the Star Trek universe and add to the collected information available. '' Should fans be sharing their "insight" in articles? knowledge, certainly, but insight? Isn't that opinion type stuff that is discouraged in articles? 22:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC) Partner sites It seems that TrekMania is down, so how does one become a partner site? - (on an unsecure connection) 23:28, November 3, 2012 (UTC) :Seeing that the last time we added a partner site was... well... eons ago... no idea. I'm not sure what a "partner site" really means anyhow. -- sulfur (talk) 01:55, November 4, 2012 (UTC) ::I wonder if the partner sites consider us a partner site. 31dot (talk) 02:02, November 4, 2012 (UTC) Based on the text at spread the word, it seems these were the early sponsors of MA. It might be a better idea to update that page, which it seems I suggested two years ago, while moving these links there. - (on an unsecure connection) 05:21, November 4, 2012 (UTC) :::A little late to the discussion, just came here because of an edit to this page (see below). I think we could simply get rid of the "partner sites" section completely. The idea of that is somewhat 1990's, anyway, and it would probably save us some work in the long run. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 09:44, January 23, 2013 (UTC) :I've gone and moved the partner sites to the "spread the word" page, trying to indicate on that page that it is more historic than current. -- sulfur (talk) 13:47, January 23, 2013 (UTC) Sister wiki MB This was just added to the first paragraph: :''We are supported in these aims by our sister wikia, Memory Beta, which provides coverage of licensed works such as books, comics and video games. Also, a link to MB was added to the "partner sites" section. I think an addition to our self-description should be discussed here, first - especially coming from a contributor that has had no prior edits here (or on MB). To be honest, I think this is unnecessary - and if it turns out to be necessary, we should at least have the self-respect to call this a "wiki", not a "wikia". Regarding the "partner sites" section, see discussion above. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 09:42, January 23, 2013 (UTC) :I think the "partner sites" should be removed. We can leave the MB link to the main page. 31dot (talk) 10:48, January 23, 2013 (UTC) ::I agree with both comments about MB. While it is a "sister" wiki to MA, it is not officially so. It is recognized on the front page, and I think (as an MB admin too) that is sufficient. ::As an aside, I do love the fact that people do things that like as their first edit. :) -- sulfur (talk) 13:47, January 23, 2013 (UTC) :::As far as I'm concerned, anyone who calls a wiki a "wikia" has invalidated themselves, completely. That said, the misconception that we are only a canon wiki might be better addressed. - 20:05, January 23, 2013 (UTC) ::::Sorry about this, and the referral to these wikis in that way (I don't tend to refer to them as wikias on anything outside of public content pages). I probably should have considered such an edit in more depth and reconsidered after reading the intro on their About page before submitting it to an official document on a major wiki, especially as I tend to flit between more minor ones. ::::However I did find that the lack of an official or definite statement or even record of the "canon" distinction and MB, combined with the proliferation of links to MB on most pages led me to assume that there was some sort of partnership between the two wikis. I would like to see some sort of clarification statement in some form. Techhead7890Talk 08:46, January 29, 2013 (UTC)